A PANEL AT US CONGRESS     On October 13, 2004, ATAA held a panel discussion titled “Future of Turkey-EU-US Relations, Examining the October 6, 2004 European Commission Report” at the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill. Zeyno Baran of The Nixon Center moderated the discussion, during which Matthew Bryza, National Security Director for the Aegean, Caucasus and Central Asia, and Ron Asmus, Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, gave presentations. Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute and John Hulsman of the Heritage Foundation were the discussants. The conference was well attended, with representatives from the US State Department; the Netherlands Embassy; Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representation Office, Morgan Stanley, The Whitehead Group, The Harbour Group, The Livingston Group; Southfive, Saltzman & Evinch, The Nixon Center, The Heritage Foundation, The Heinrich Böll Foundation, The Western Policy Center, German Marshall Fund, The World Bank, Uyghur American Association, American Turkish Council, B’nai B’rith International, the Armenian Assembly of America, HasNA Inc., Turkish and foreign media, universities, and several other local companies and organizations.     THE PROGRAM: A Panel Discussion: “Future of Turkey-EU-US Relations” Examining the October 6, 2004 European Commission Report Ercument Kilic, the president of ATAA welcomed the speakers, and the guests, and invited Zeynon Baran, the moderator of this panel to the podium, after introducing the speakers Matthew Bryza, National Security Director for the Aegean, Caucasus and Central Asia, and Ron Asmus, Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, gave presentations. Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute and John Hulsman of the Heritage Foundation were the discussants. To begin the discussion, Baran argued that, as Turkey moves closer to the EU and continues to implement political and economic reforms, it is likely that domestic benefactors of the current status quo will put up a fight. She urged the US to closely monitor the dynamics of Turkey’s internal politics in order to prevent a historic “accident” on Turkey’s path to EU membership. Asmus also described the report as a historic breakthrough and underlined that Turkey’s destiny is ultimately in its own hands. He recognized that some European countries are not comfortable with Turkish power; their leaders wonder if Turkey will, over time, behave more like a European country. With Europeans finally realizing that Turkish membership is a true possibility, the debate is heating up, with opposition voices becoming more strident. Asmus recalled how some of the European countries had initially opposed the recent enlargement to the Central and Eastern European nations, and how these countries did not take “no” for an answer. As they transformed themselves, they also transformed the EU and are now full members. Asmus also highlighted that, while both Democrats and Republicans agree on the importance of anchoring Turkey into the EU, the US ability to influence the EU depends on the overall state and health of US-European relations which need to be improved if Washington is to have influence.     Cagaptay considered the EU Commission report as an overall positive for Turkey, but he expressed concern over its conditionality. He believes that Turkish accession is far from guaranteed, as it depends to a large degree on politics, especially within France and Germany. In the latter country, the pro-Turkish membership Social Democratic Party is slowly losing ground to the Christian Democratic Party, which strongly opposes Turkish entry. The situation is worse in France; while President Jacques Chirac supports Turkish membership, both he and his likely successor, current finance minister Nicholas Sarkozy, want Turkish membership to be submitted to popular referendum. Given that opinion polls suggest a majority of people in France oppose Turkish entry to the EU, based on concerns that it is too large, too poor and too Muslim, such a referendum could lead to serious problems for Turkey-and for the EU itself. Cagaptay concluded by stating that “without Turkey, the EU will be a regional club; with Turkey, it will be a global force.” Hulsman concurred that Turkey’s EU process will henceforth center on European political concerns. Since no small country could block Turkish membership, the focus should be on the “big three.” He highlighted that while Britain strategically supports Turkey’s EU accession, its electorate would vote ‘no’ on a referendum. Hulsman also highlighted a possible French referendum as the ultimate problem for Turkey, especially if Sarkozy decided to use the opposition to Turkish accession as a political card in the 2007 election. Despite these challenges facing Turkey, he agreed with the three previous speakers that the best strategy for Turkey is to continue making progress on reforms, thus making it difficult for the EU to say no.     In the discussion a wide range of questions was asked, with subjects ranging from Turkish domestic developments to the future of Turkish-Armenian relations. One of the most important points made was that it is mainly those European countries who have most failed to integrate its Muslims-especially France-that are most opposed to Turkish membership as they fear further Islamization in Europe. Moreover, many of these Europeans do not differentiate between Turkish, Moroccan and Algerian Muslims, and do not realize that the guest workers found in Western Europe do not represent majority of the Turks. The only way for the Europeans to realize how different Turks are is through further person-to-person contact, especially through travel.